You are on page 1of 26

Welcome.

This is Version 2 of "Risk Ranger", software developed at the Austra understanding of the process of microbial food safety risk assessme

The software has been peer-reviewed and has been published in (Ross, T. and Sumner, J.L. (2002). A simple, spreadsheet-based, f Journal of Food Microbiology , 77:39-53) which fully describes the lo

This version has been modified from the original described in the ab to Moderate, Mild and Minor hazard severity classifications (Q risk rank scaling (0 - 100) and its original interpretation but better r non-life threatening hazards. Question 3 has also been slightly mo frequency. The software is useful for teaching the principles of risk assessm factors contributing to food safety risk. It has also been used in combinations. As with any such software the outputs are only as reliable as the da of the intended uses and limitations of the program. Please note th and changes may have been made, either deliberately or inadverte copy of the spreadsheet you are currently using, a new copy may be

software developed at the Australian Food Safety Centre of Excellence, to assist crobial food safety risk assessment.

wed and has been published in the International Journal of Food Microbiology . A simple, spreadsheet-based, food safety risk assessment tool. International 39-53) which fully describes the logic behind the system as well as its limitations.

m the original described in the above publication by reducing the weight given hazard severity classifications (Question 1) by a factor of 10. This preserves the riginal interpretation but better reflects the severity of fatal disease compared to stion 3 has also been slightly modified to enable better discrimination of serving

g the principles of risk assessment in relation to food safety, and highlighting y risk. It has also been used in ranking the risk of various product/pathogen

puts are only as reliable as the data entered, and users are urged to remain aware s of the program. Please note that the Risk Ranger spreadsheet is not protected e, either deliberately or inadvertently. If you are uncertain of the integrity of the rrently using, a new copy may be downloaded from

f Excellence, to assist

of Food Microbiology nt tool. International well as its limitations.

ng the weight given 0. This preserves the disease compared to crimination of serving

fety, and highlighting ous product/pathogen

urged to remain aware sheet is not protected of the integrity of the

The Risk Ranking value is a simplified measure of relative ris Because of the magnitude of differences in risk under situation interest a logarithmic scale is used and, for convenience, a sca was chosen. We set the upper limit of the scale (100) as the worst imaginabl every member of the population eats a meal that contains a leth every day.

To set the lower end of the scale we arbitrarily chose a probabi illness of less than or equal to one case per 10 billion people (g global population) per 100 years as a negligible risk. The risk x10-18 times that of the scenario to which the upper end of the

Thus, the chosen range extends over 17.56 orders of magnitud increment of six Risk Ranking units, corresponds approxima difference in the absolute risk estimate.

easure of relative risk. n risk under situations and scenarios of r convenience, a scale between 0 and 100

the worst imaginable scenario, i.e. where al that contains a lethal dose of the hazard

arily chose a probability of mild food-borne r 10 billion people (greater than current gible risk. The risk in this situation is 2.75 the upper end of the scale corresponds.

orders of magnitude and, as a result, an responds approximately to a factor of 10

A. SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SEVERITY


6 1 Hazard Severity

2 How susceptible is the population of interest ?

B. PROBABILITY OF EXPOSURE TO FOOD


3 Frequency of Consumption

If "OTHER" enter

"number

of days between a 100g

10
8

4 Proportion of Population Consuming the Product

5 Size of Consuming Population 9


Population considered:

If "OTHER" please specify:

19,500,000

6,500,000 Hazard Severity How susceptble is Frequency of contamination Effect of Process Effect of Meal Preparation Potential for Recontamination Effect of P/Process Control 0.001 1 0.1 1.00E-03 1.00E-03 0.01 1 0.1 0.142465753 2.50E-01 1.95E+07 1
0.00

Increase req. for a toxic dose Consumption frequency of consumers of Population Consuming the Product Size of Total Population 11(fraction of population considered)

C. PROBABILITY OF FOOD CONTAINING AN INFECTIOUS DOSE


Probablity of Contamination of Raw Product per Serving 10

If "OTHER" enter a percentage value between 0 (none) and 100

0.0001%

Effect of Processing

11

If "OTHER" enter a value that indicates the extent of risk increase

1.00E-03

Is there potential for recontamination after processing ?

If "OTHER" enter a percentage value between 0 (none) and 100

9.00%

(all) effective is the post-processing control How system?

P morbid dose (general response) Total exposures to food per day P morbidity (normal) P exposure/day

0.000001 6.95E+05 0.69452055 0.03561644

253.5

OD CONTAINING AN INFECTIOUS DOSE


What increase in the post-procssing contamination level would cause infection or intoxication to the average consumer?

If "other", what is the increase (multiplic-ative) needed to reach an infectious dose ?

1.E+02

Effect of preparation before eating

If "other", enter a value that indicates the extent of risk increase

1.00E-03

RISK ESTIMATES
probability of illness per day per consumer of interest (Pinf x Pexp )

1.42E-07

total predicted illnesses/annum in population of interest

2.54E+02

total predicted illnesses/annum in population of interest

2.54E+02

RISK RANKING ( 0 to 100)

40

3.56E-11

0.000001

"COMPARATIVE RISK" in population of interest

######

"COMPARATIVE RISK" in population of interest

######

1. Hazard Severity SEVERE hazard - causes death to most victims 1 MODERATE hazard - requires medical intervention in most cases 0.01 MILD hazard - sometimes requires medical attention 0.001 MINOR hazard - patient rarely seeks medical attention 0.0001
3 0.001 1 5 30 200 1

2. How susceptible is the consumer ?


GENERAL - all members of the population SLIGHT - e.g., infants, aged VERY - e.g.,neonates, very young, diabetes, cancer, alcoholic etc EXTREME - e.g., AIDS, transplants recipients, etc. 1

3. Frequency of Contamination
Rare (1 in a 1000) Infrequent (1 per cent) Sometimes (10 per cent) Common (50 per cent) All (100 per cent) OTHER 3 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.5 1 0.0000500% 1.00E-01 0

4a. Effect of Process


The process RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards

The process USUALLY (99% of cases) ELIMINATES hazards The process SLIGHTLY (50% of cases) REDUCES hazards The process has NO EFFECT on the hazards The process INCREASES (10 x) the hazards The process GREATLY INCREASES (1000 x ) the hazards OTHER 7

0.01 0.5 1 10 1000 1.00E-03 0.001

4b. Effect of Preparation for Meal


Meal Preparation RELIABLY ELIMINATES hazards Meal Preparation USUALLY ELIMINATES (99%) hazards Meal Preparation SLIGHTLY REDUCES (50%) hazards Meal Preparation has NO EFFECT on the hazards OTHER 5 0 0.01 0.5 1 1.00E-03 1.00E-03

5. Is there potential for recontamination ?


NO YES - minor (1% frequency) YES - major (50% frequency) OTHER 2 0.00 0.01 0.50 0.09 0.01

6. How effective is the post-processing control system?

WELL CONTROLLED - reliable, effective, systems in place (no increase in pathogens) 1 CONTROLLED - mostly reliable systems in place (3-fold increase) 3 NOT CONTROLLED - no systems, untrained staff (10 -fold increase) 10 GROSS ABUSE OCCURS - (e.g.1000-fold increase) 1000 NOT RELEVANT - level of risk agent does not change 1 5 1 WORST CASE 0

7. How much increase is required to reach an infectious or toxic dose?


none slight (10 fold increase) moderate (100-fold increase) significant (10,000-fold increase) OTHER 2 1 0.1 0.01 0.0001 1.E-02 0.1

8. Frequency of Consumption
daily weekly monthly a few times per year OTHER 2 365 52 12 3 36.5 52 600000

9. Proportion of Consuming Population


all (100%) most (75%) some (25%) very few (5%) 3 1 0.75 0.25 0.05 0.25 From ABS 1998 stats, scaled up to 2000 estimates of total population. Probably introduces some error, e.g. in Tas, where popn is declining.

10. Size of Consuming Population


Australia ACT New South Wales Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria Western Australia OTHER 1 19500000 321000 6595000 198000 3595000 1547000 491000 4847000 1905000 6,500,000 19500000 19500000

6500000

Size of Affected Population


based on Question 2 selection 1

p to 2000 estimates of total es some error, e.g. in Tas, declining.